[Christopher Lee]

I don’t wish to hijack the thread (and happy to start another if appropriate) but I would like to propose a “reframing” of the original idea but its just that it seems to have bogged down into a discussion over the strength/thickness of metal versus projectiles, etc.

Years ago, during idle moments at work I mused upon the following scenario: At some time in the near future severe financial constraints throughout the world lead the superpowers to the day to propose a radical reframing of military hegemony. Due to the increasing cost of military technology and the ever expanding military budgets threatening to shatter economies a collective decision is made to abandon modern military technology. The rational is that wars have been fought and national conflicts decided since the beginning of time using sticks and stones, therefore war in itself is not dependent upon the weapons involved, and the outcomes can be decided just as effectively using a longbow or a tank (stay with me here people!).

A decision is made that no firearm technology can be used in warfare. This also excludes the use of vehicles on the battlefield. Modern vehicles and even aircraft can be used in a support and logistics role but can not be used for offensive purposes. No powered suits or powered weapons are allowed, only hand weapons and non-firearms based projectile weapons. Synthetic fibres and modern metallurgy can be used and there are no constraints upon the style or type of armour used. Satellite and aerial surveillance can be used but only for recon, not for offensive purposes. Modern communications can be used to control the army.

So, the international community sets a timeframe in which all nations agree to retool their armies to the new standard. A “reserve” of modern technology is set aside by each nation to be retained in case of “rule breakers”. An internationally (UN) controlled reserve of nuclear weapons is made available to be used against any nation that wilfully and consistently flouts the rules of war.

Modern technology can be used only in the roles of support and logistics but troops march to war and armies manoeuvre in the old fashioned way.

So, reframing the scenario like this, what would a “modern” war look like now?
Would tactics and strategy change?
Would grand strategic goals be reframed?
How would the modern soldier adjust to the new style of combat? Would they be “baulked” by the prospect of coming to hand to hand combat with their enemies, being up close and personal? Indeed, is the modern soldier, due to cultural and societal development, still capable of hacking another human to death and face the prospect of the same happening to them?
Could the wounded be medivaced from a crowed, congested battlefield or shield wall? How would the prospect of no medivac until the battle is over effect the fighting man?
Would cultural variations arise in which certain nations favoured certain weapons or tactics?
Would the somewhat nebulous concept of “national character” play a role in the development of tactics and weapons? Would certain nations favour the “parthian shot” while others prefer a more static pike block approach?
Would national governments use “heroes” and battlefield exploits to “inspire” a new generation of fighters? For example would the Scots look to Wallace and The Bruce for inspiration and adopt schiltrons?
What tactical formations would prove to be the most effective? Pike squares and longbow or cavalry and horse archers?
How large would armies have to be to be effective?
Would warfare become somewhat “formalised” or “ritualistic”?
Given that there are no “knights” as such anymore (as in an actual hereditary nobility class based system) would nations feel the need to create units of armoured cavalry to fulfil that role?

Just a few thoughts.

[Jean Thibodeau]

Christopher: Interesting concept as a thought experiment and to see what one can conclude from it.

In a Real World context this might only work if powerful aliens imposed these rules on us, but just for the extrapolations from the initial conditions/rules stated the " cause(s) " and " arbitration " of these rules can be irrelevant and need not be brought into the discussion I think.

Those who find these types of speculations boring or uninteresting need not read or participate.

To add a relevant comment about the arms race in general: Between weapons and armour there is always a seesaw effect where the weapons become unstoppable, with no armour being effective, at one extreme, and armour becoming undefeatable by the current weapons at the other extreme, and the usual situation being somewhere in between with any imbalance being effective for only a short time i.e. the weapons makers versus the armour makers alernating in dominating with technological advantages.

Now in this scenario I see the protection given by armour being much more effective than any hand weapons so that the armoured " Knights " wouldn't be able to easily harm each other but also would completely dominate anyone not equally armoured.

I think the fights would turn inconclusive as far as weapons are concerned but would, to a degree like historically, be decided by wresting, fatigue/exhaustion leading mostly to capture / ransom / prisoner exchanges among the Knights and total slaughter among the rest of the not as well armoured.

[Christopher Lee]

[quote="Now in this scenario I see the protection given by armour being much more effective than any hand weapons so that the armoured " Knights " wouldn't be able to easily harm each other but also would completely dominate anyone not equally armoured.

I think the fights would turn inconclusive as far as weapons are concerned but would, to a degree like historically, be decided by wresting, fatigue/exhaustion leading mostly to capture / ransom / prisoner exchanges among the Knights and total slaughter among the rest of the not as well armoured. [/quote]

One of the things that occurs to me is that given there are no "knights" as a class or social elite any more and that virtually all national armies are based upon citizen enrollement or conscription, if you, as a foot soldier, a grunt of the line, are armoured head to foot in the best armour your government can provide then you effectively become, for want of a better term, but an inaccurate term, "a knight". But in effect i think that you would be a "specialist", a member of a particular unit that fights in a particular way that is not based upon a medieval social hierarchy.

Another interesting point that you make is the effect of an arms race. If modern synthetic fibres were used, what would be the effect upon hand to hand combat, would it be rendered ineffective and inconclusive or would it turn into the talhoffer style wrestling on the ground with rondel daggers trying to stab into a "chink" or soft spot, trying to rip off the helmet, etc?

I'm more interested in the effects upon the front line fighting man, would modern soldier still have the "bottle" to stand at push of pike, or would they adapt pretty quickly?

[Christopher Punty]

[Adam D. Kent-Isaac]

Again, how are these hypothetical knights getting around? Horses? Or some kind of mechanized power armor?

[Zac Evans]

Both Warhammer 40,000 and the original starship troopers book give brilliant and different ideas to how "knight" type people could be used. I really like the mechanicus "knights" from 40k. They're awesome.

[Christopher VaughnStrever]

I'd say Knights would use and imploy the Horses. And I like the idea about newly imposed conditions of wars.

I'd also go as far as to say that the billioniers of this era are the ones to hire out and fund the Knights themselves. Making goverments go back to hiring out companies of Knights. Say... Very few people entere'd war anymore just by signing up making the demand for Hired Mercs (Knights) that much more important.

And since guns are on the field why not put a gun(s) in the Hands of our Knights.

Even Knives are present and used on the field of battle today. But if a knight had a combination of plate/kevlar in a light weight standard the scenerio may get interesting.

[David Clark]

[Jonathan Blair]

[Bill Tsafa]

The most identifying feature of the medieval knight was the horse he rode on. Armor and weapons came second. The horse, armor and weapons came for the land he was given by the Lord for his commitment to provide service. That land came with surfs who did the work necessary to support and equip the knight. Historians estimate that it took the annual income of a whole village to arm and equip one knight. The land for service relationship is to what a "knight" is. In the 15th century mercenaries fighting in armor on horses were not necessarily knights.

Modern tank and combat aircraft an equivalent representation of the horse, armor and weapons that a medieval knight had. Binging back the knightly era would not so much be a factor of using medieval weapons... but a matter of establishing a land for service relationship with modern day tank commanders and pilots.

This is somewhat feasible since military technology has advanced so that working individuals are no longer capable of giving easy resistance to tyrannies as they did in the age of muskets. The only reason we did not have surfdom in America is because the American farmer was armed to the teeth and could not be easily subdued. The military at the time armed with muskets, cannon and horses, did not have that great of an advantage over civilians equally armed... so America developed into a republic. In the modern era civilians no longer have access to the weapons that government has, so the seeds of oppression have been sewed.


That said... the return to medieval weapons would occur if the components to modern day gunpowder and blackpowder or oil were no longer available and substitutes could not be found.

[Gabriele A. Pini]

Settled that there is a return to the medieval warfare type (Alien threat, exaustion of oil reserves, international pact, Gaia control like in "There will be dragons") how this will be influenced by the modern style of life?

Bill correctly stated that it needed the income of a whole village to arm a knight in the medieval times. But if we are to arm a knight now? How many of us have a whole suit of armor (or several) and don't own a village? A horse is expensive (someone can give some figures of the cost to feed an horse now?) but not so expensive like it was 800 years ago.

So we can correctly assume that a modern state can equip a company of knights without excessive (relatively) expense, certanly for far less than a complete cruiser or a company of tanks...

Like the production of edge weapons: image that swords, armours and so like are product at an industrial level but with a good quality control (we are talking of real weapons, not wallhangers). How much can a similar sword cost? 50€? The cost of a pair of jeans...

Just some thoughts to continue the discussion

OT stupid: OMG... Image going to the mall with your girlfriend: "So, you go to Club Banana, I will go to the new AlbionShop... See you at 18.00!"... Rows upon rows of welded titan mail (XXXL, thanks!) with kevlar gambeson (with the new technology odor-stop, "So you can kiss her after battle!"), shield of ceramic alloys pre-formed with bonus "Rhapsody of fire" stickers ... And in the center the new Fractal Valkyrja ...

Thought for the day:
If all else fail, empty your lasgun!

[Christopher Lee]

[Walter S]

[Dan Howard]

[Sean Flynt]

In medieval England, nobility/knights typically dismounted to fight. That's one reason for the huge losses among the Lancastrian elite at Towton--when the rout began their horses were far to the rear with the baggage. They were overrun by infantry, ridden down by cavalry, drowned, captured and slaughtered, etc. One WOTR commander is said to have gone a step further, killing his horse in front of his men to demonstrate that he would be with them to the end of the fight. Sort of like locking the fire exit. From what I've read, the medieval war horse was an expendable tool.

But, in general, I think the only way the proposed scenario is even worth considering is if you remove gunpowder/firearms from the equation. You'd still have advances in projectile weapons, metallurgy, etc. to play with.

[David Clark]

I agree that the use of firearms does throw a HUGE monkey wrench in the whole scenerio. I too find it more enjoyable to speculate on the methods and materials that armour, etc would be made using modern methods and techniques. (that is not to say that they are necesarilly more skillfull or effective than their medieval counterparts).

I can just imagine, the fyrd, militia or whatever you want to call it, being armed with shields made of road sign. Its light, doesn't rust, resists damage and is in ready supply in a variety of shapes, most of which are easily made to work as shields!